Introduction
Job ads for academic librarians consistently mention, for those in public service, roles in instruction of users, and often, for those in technical services positions, mention roles in training for library staff.1 The “Draft College and University Professional Association Position Descriptions for Academic Libraries”2 list teaching, instruction, and training with surprising regularity. Librarians, new and veteran, are expected to have skills in teaching and training and to understand how people learn and what motivates learning.
Many library schools have developed stand-alone instruction-relat-ed courses.3 Despite these offerings, many newly graduated librarians did not take these courses, perhaps not realizing that instruction would be a component of their future jobs, and those already in the field often did not have the opportunity to do so. The Immersion Program of-fered by the Association of College and Research Libraries through its Institute for Information Literacy has filled the gap for some through its Teacher Track, but many libraries cannot afford its steep registra-tion fees.4 In addition, instructional improvement programs have long been offered in specific institutions, and several attempts have been made to summarize and describe them. Alice Clark, over 20 years ago, reported on a survey of programs in ARL libraries,5 and Scott Walter and Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe updated this information several years ago.6 Priscilla Atkins and Catherine E. Freirichs describe a process used to develop in-house programming, very much like those at other institu-tions.7 Programs like the Instructor College at University of Michigan, instruction in-services at The Ohio State University Libraries, “Tips
314
TEACHING THE TEACHERS
DEVELOPING A TEACHING IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM FOR ACADEMIC LIBRARIANS
Beth S. Woodard and Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
and Techniques for Library Instruction” at the University of Texas Libraries, the very theoretically grounded staff development initiative at Queensland University of Technology, and “teacher meetings” at the University of Washington-Bothell all recognize that training and con-tinual development of instructional skills are important to the develop-ment of instructional programs in academic libraries.8
Professional development is an important responsibility not only for individual librarians but also for academic libraries.9 The term
in-structional improvement is used by Paulsen and Feldman to describe the practice of offering professional development activities for college in-structors that help them improve their performance in the classroom.10 Academic librarians have these classroom and instructional professional development needs as well.
This case study will examine the programs and workshops of the University Library of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign as it attempts to orient approximately 100 librarians to their instruc-tional roles and to meet the continuing education needs of the Uni-versity Library’s instructional staff, which includes librarians as well as support staff and a contingent of approximately 60 graduate assistants enrolled in the Graduate School of Library and Information Science working in preprofessional public services positions.
Institutional Environment
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is a land grant public institution in a nonurban environment. The institution is considered a research-extensive institution according to the Carnegie Classification.11 As such, there is an important emphasis on scholarship for faculty. Although teaching and service are important criteria in promotion and tenure, the overriding factor is the level of research and publica-tion. Librarians have faculty status and professorial rank at Illinois and face the same expectations as other faculty for tenure and promotion decisions. Consequently, in addition to high levels of involvement in national service through association committee service and presenta-tions at conferences, excellence in research and scholarship in the form of published papers, articles, chapters in books, and monographs is expected in both annual review and tenure and promotion processes. In addition to its emphasis on research, the university has been pursuing
initiatives related to quality undergraduate education for a number of years. The institution sees its role as a leader in research, teaching, and public engagement in pursuit of its vision to “become the preeminent public research institution.”12
In order to serve the needs of its faculty and research students, the library developed into a multilibrary system, with over 40 departmen-tal libraries distributed in more than 25 buildings across the campus. There is a legend, which exemplifies the value of decentralized library services, in which the chemistry library became the first departmen-tal library because by the time a chemistry faculty member ran across campus to check some data in a reference book, the experiment in his lab had failed. Consequently the current system of collections based on subject disciplines being housed separately, and often within the building with offices of the faculty being served, was established. Though evolving through the University Library’s New Service Model Programs initiative,14 changes being made are guided by a commitment to “retaining the greatest strengths of the departmental library service model.”15
Because fewer than half of the departmental libraries were housed within the main building, and because of the characteristics of librar-ian faculty status at Illinois, an environment that recognized individual autonomy and authority developed, and individual librarians developed unique strategies and approaches to providing services to their clientele.
Organization of User Education at Illinois
With a history of great emphasis on collection development and sup-port of faculty research needs, as well as the concomitant unique and varied approaches to collection development and reference services, it is no surprise that a systematic approach to user education within the library system has been slow to develop. The Undergraduate Library focuses on students in the first and second years of college, primarily working with writing-intensive and speech communication courses that fulfill the basic composition requirement. Subject librarians serve the courses in their colleges or departments and have had mixed successes with integrating information literacy into research-intensive courses.
In the mid-1980s, a loosely knit group of librarians from across the campus met for lunch once a month to discuss bibliographic issues. No
formal committee existed until 1986, when the OPAC User Educa-tion Committee was created. This committee focused specifically on user instruction workshops and handouts for the new online catalog. Gradually, responsibilities for CD-ROM databases, end-user searching, and Web-based indexes were assigned to this group, with the commit-tee taking on an increasingly comprehensive charge and developing basic instructional materials for the library’s webpages in 1995. Though much was accomplished through the committee, eventually renamed the User Education Committee, the revolving nature of committee membership and competing demands on committee members’ time hampered the development of instructional leadership for the library as a whole.
A Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction, reporting to the Associate University Librarian for Services, was hired in 2002 and charged to lead efforts to develop a more systematized approach to offering instruction. Initial steps in the development of the information literacy program included taking stock of existing instruc-tional efforts, identifying unserved and underserved groups, provid-ing support for librarians teachprovid-ing instruction sessions or developprovid-ing instructional materials, and selecting strategic directions for short- and long-term efforts. Developing instructional facilities was another important aspect that needed to be addressed to improve instructional efforts by librarians, as librarians repeatedly stated they were hampered in developing instruction programs by not having spaces in which to teach. In addition, the coordinator was charged to “nurture the profes-sional development of librarians as educators and serve as a resource person for library faculty and staff in this area… the Coordinator will ensure that library staff have the necessary knowledge and skills to pro-vide information literacy instruction and other services at the highest level possible.”16 A year after the Coordinator for Information Literacy was hired, the University Library also appointed a Coordinator for Staff Development and Training, a key position in helping with the develop-ing instructional improvement program.
To create a foundation for the information literacy program and a common understanding throughout the University Library of instruc-tional goals, the coordinator worked with the User Education Com-mittee to develop guiding documents for the program—specifically
a vision statement and a statement on learning goals. User education services are guided by a vision that states:
The Information Literacy Services and Instruction programs offered by the University Library teach library users to iden-tify, retrieve, evaluate, judge, use and value information and information tools while attending to the legal and ethical considerations involved in doing so. The services and programs are developed in a strategic and systematic manner but are expected to vary in approach and composition of strategies utilized based on curriculum needs, user skills and experiences, and library resources. Methods in use include formal group in-struction, including course-integrated sessions, credit courses, and open workshops; individual one-to-one instruction; and independent learning opportunities including both print and web-based point-of-use instructional materials. Librarians col-laborate with campus faculty and staff to develop instruction that is responsive to teaching and learning needs and furthers the development of student information literacy. The programs are characterized by assessment of student learning outcomes and systematic program evaluation and particular attention is paid to identifying unserved and underserved groups.17 The University Library’s “Statement on Learning Goals” incor-porates both the “Model Statement of Objectives for Academic Bib-liographic Instruction” and the “Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education” in order to provide frameworks for developing learning goals.18
Objectives for the Instructional Improvement Program
The unique environment of the Illinois Library—decentralized librar-ies, a highly autonomous library faculty, and many staff and graduate assistants also teaching but without any central instruction unit beyond the Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction and one graduate assistant—led to the approach adopted by the University Library in providing support for librarians developing themselves as teachers. The focus is on creating opportunities for development rather
than a set curriculum or a mandate for attendance at specific functions. As such, the instructional improvement program is one that focuses on “continual growth that anticipates and complements the evolving in-formation needs of our institutions and of society”19 and is at the same time sensitive to and reflective of the University Library organization structure and culture.
The library hopes to improve librarians’ teaching and to establish a community of teachers who can provide mutual support and feedback by always considering instructional improvement from the perspec-tive of library faculty members who are choosing to better their skills and abilities. Training and development related to teaching is not part of a remedial or annual evaluation system. This program for teaching improvement shares the goals of the University of Michigan’s Instructor College:
• fostering interest and enthusiasm
• encouraging reflection and creativity in teaching • improving confidence in teaching abilities • improving knowledge and skills in teaching
• understanding the impact of teaching on student learning • changing work practices
• creating a community and developing, maintaining, and
strengthening social networks among those involved
• formalizing library instruction as the ultimate goal20 The Illinois Library’s “Vision for Information Literacy Services and Instruction” specifically states that “library faculty and staff have opportunities to participate in professional development opportunities that improve their instructional skills and understanding of student learning,”21 and this is an integral component of achieving the vision for the library. Librarians and other instructional staff are encour-aged to participate in offerings through the library itself, the Teaching Alliance (a joint program of the University Library and the Graduate School of Library and Information Science), the university, and consor-tia and professional organizations.
Library Offerings
Opportunities for developing baseline skills and knowledge are the foundation for the instructional improvement program within the
University Library. Without such knowledge and skills, instructors will not be able to further their own abilities and will struggle with logisti-cal basics, impeding their own effectiveness.
The “Checklist for New Librarians and Others with Teaching Responsibilities: Information Literacy”is the foundational document for orienting those responsible for provision of instruction. It recognizes that the decentralized nature of the institution and the autonomous culture would not ensure that new librarians received the information they needed to be successful instructors. The Coordinator for Informa-tion Literacy Services and InstrucInforma-tion worked with the User EducaInforma-tion Committee to develop this checklist, which the coordinator reviews with new librarians to orient them to roles of individuals, continuing education opportunities, existing programs, and resources. See the ap-pendix for this checklist.
In contrast, graduate assistants are trained to provide instruc-tion within their own library units by the librarians in the unit. As a complement to this, an overview presentation, “Teaching and Learn-ing in Academic Libraries,” is given once a year to provide background information for those who do not have instructional components for the assistantships or who wish additional training. The Undergraduate Library and the Reference Library have held initial discussions regard-ing how they might cooperate to develop a more robust approach to training graduate assistants since graduate assistants have specific and rather extensive assigned instructional responsibilities in each unit.
Library/GSLIS Teaching Alliance
In addition to offerings within the library, librarians and instructional staff can also attend programs offered by the Teaching Alliance, a joint program of the university’s Graduate School of Library and Infor-mation Science (GSLIS) and the University Library, which provides professional development programs related to teaching to both librar-ians and library and information science professors, as well as doctoral and master’s degree students in library and information science. Events offered through the Teaching Alliance have formed the bulk of the in-struction improvement workshops sponsored by the University Library.
The Teaching Alliance sponsored two to three events per semester from its inception in 2001 until 2005, when regularly allocated campus
funding was changed to a grant program and programming slowed to one to two events per semester. With the appointment of new leader-ship for the Teaching Alliance in fall 2008, including a liaison from the campus Center for Teaching Excellence, and a reconsidered funding model, programming is projected to grow and return to former levels.
An initial retreat, inspired by Anna Litten’s work,22 provided the foundation for the collaborative programming. During a lunchtime discussion facilitated by the Library and Information Science Librarian, retreat participants brainstormed topics for future sessions, which gave participants the opportunity to share their interests and needs regard-ing professional development topics. The choice of events centered around improving confidence in teaching abilities, improving knowl-edge and skills in teaching, and understanding the impact of teach-ing on student learnteach-ing. Many of the topics highlighted in the “Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education”23 were topics of discussion, including encouraging contact between students and faculty, encouraging active learning, giving prompt feedback, com-municating high expectations, and respecting diverse talents and ways of learning. This framework provides a useful approach to organizing a summary of the events as it is more reflective of themes pursued since 2001 than a chronological approach would be.
Encourage Contact between Students and Faculty
According to educational research, frequent student-faculty contact in and out of classes is the most important factor in student motivation and involvement,24 but librarians were not comfortable using technolo-gy to make that contact. Christine Jenkins and Jill Gengler, both of the library school, addressed teaching with technology in a session entitled “Teaching in an Electronic Classroom.” They shared information and teaching strategies that related to teaching with various modes of tech-nology. A large part of the presentation focused on the technology used for real-time distance education classes within GSLIS. A handout sum-marized technology available in GSLIS to support distance teaching and learning and described the advantages of each type of technology. The session reviewed different forms of synchronous and asynchronous technologies that support classroom work.
of specific techniques for teaching in an electronic classroom that would be applicable for both library and GSLIS faculty. In a computer classroom, Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, at that time working at Illinois State University, presented a session on general considerations for teaching in a computer lab. The content covered sight lines, layout of the room, and principles for effective presentation in a computer lab setting rather than specific software or technology usage.
Encourage Active Learning
Active learning refers to a wide range of teaching and learning activi-ties that require or encourage students to do more than sit passively and listen. Chickering and Gamson suggest that beyond listening, students must read, write, discuss, or be engaged in solving problems.25 “Most important, to be actively involved, students must engage in such higher-order thinking tasks as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.”26
A two-part series, led by Dean Papajohn of the campus Office of Instructional Resources, was offered on effective lecturing. The first session was devoted to presentation and discussion of the principles and strategies of effective lecturing, while the second session gave participants an opportunity to teach a minilesson for eight minutes and receive peer feedback. Most participants attended both sessions and participated in the microteaching. In the first session, the basics of lecturing were reviewed as well as hints for preparing and delivering lectures that actively involve learners. The goal for the session was to review the features and strategies of lectures, including defining lecture objectives, profiling audiences, distinguishing between weak and strong openings, creating relevant examples, determining appropriate organi-zational structures, and practicing delivery skills. In pairs, the partici-pants discussed how lecturers and learners can be active or inactive. The group suggested that active lecturers ask questions, are flexible and change course based on students’ questions, supplement talking with visuals and hands-on experiences, show enthusiasm, cultivate interest in the topic, guide students in preparing before class so there is knowledge upon which to build, consider the sequence of what is to be learned, provide feedback to gauge comprehension, think through assignments and prepare compelling questions before class, demonstrate current knowledge of the topic, and prepare current and relevant examples.
Active students are seen as those who make eye contact, ask questions, contribute ideas and experiences, make connections, take notes, and participate in group discussions and student presentations.
Distinguished Teacher/Scholar Jim Gentry from the College of Commerce and GSLIS faculty member Pat Lawton presented an inter-active session to outline some of the qualities of an exemplary teacher. With Jim Gentry as facilitator and participants divided into a group of “students” and a group of observers, Pat Lawton taught a miniles-son, which Jim then analyzed for aspects of exemplary teaching. A very popular and effective teacher at GSLIS, Pat used a variety of teaching techniques to engage the “students” in the learning process as she dem-onstrated a host of exemplary teaching strategies. During the debriefing session facilitated by Jim, observers commented on the level of engage-ment of the “students” and the effectiveness of using concrete models in representing the abstract ideas of classification, which was the theme of the minilesson. Following the debriefing session, participants broke into small groups for further discussion over lunch. Facilitators from the campus Office of Instructional Resources were present so that each roundtable had a discussant to lead a dialogue on the principles and practices of effective teaching.
Developed in response to the requests of a number of participants, a workshop was designed to provide small-group instruction on the basics of HTML coding with the aim of being able to post teaching materials on the Web. With such a small-group approach, individual-ized instruction was possible. Jeni Weidenbenner, the Teaching Alli-ance graduate assistant, began with a brief overview of considerations for basic Web design and then facilitated a workshop where partici-pants could work on their own HTML projects. The basic presentation was posted on a website, and the URL was disseminated to interested people who were unable to attend the workshop. During the session, one participant chose to work on a basic website for her library, while another participant worked on a personal homepage. The diversity of goals for Web design was well suited to the atmosphere of individual-ized instruction.
Give Prompt Feedback
key to helping the student learn. According to Wlodkowski and Gins-berg, teachers should provide feedback that is informational rather than controlling, based on agreed-upon standards, specific and constructive, quantitative, prompt, frequent, positive, and personal and differential.27
Sandra Finley, Education Specialist at the campus Center for Teaching Excellence (formerly named the Office of Instructional Re-sources), led a workshop entitled “Keeping Your Ship on Course: How to Use Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs).” Several exercises were administered during the discussion, and handouts outlining some of the major CATs were distributed.
A follow-up session, “Create a Classroom Assessment Technique,” was facilitated by Teaching Alliance coordinators Linda Smith (GSLIS) and Lisa Hinchliffe (library). Participants were asked ahead of time to think of ways in which they would like to implement CATs in their instructional program. The session then attempted as far as possible to present some practical considerations and highlight three techniques that would best suit the needs expressed: Background Knowledge Probe, One-Minute Paper, and Classroom Opinion Poll.28
Communicate High Expectations
Research has shown that expecting students to perform well becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, having direct impact upon student learning,29 and that how these expectations are communicated is important.30 Communicating these expectations was the focus of other sessions. For the Teaching Alliance’s first online, synchronous event, a small group facilitated by Linda Smith discussed issues of academic integrity and brainstormed approaches to preventing cheating and confronting cheaters. Initial discussion considered the university’s academic code, for which all students are responsible, as well as the range of infrac-tions of the code (e.g., cheating, fabrication, facilitating infracinfrac-tions, and plagiarism).
Participants decided that the chat conversation would focus on plagiarism, the inherent pitfalls of dealing with such infractions, and options for instructing students about how to avoid plagiarism, for which it was noted that instructors can exercise authority and discre-tion in handling infracdiscre-tions. Much of the discussion focused on the inability of students to distinguish fair use from plagiarism in many
cases. The group considered options for educating students about academic writing, in particular the utility of creating a tutorial for new students (including master’s level students). The discussion focused on the creation of assignments that minimize a student’s ability to plagia-rize. As a whole, the group agreed that creative writing assignments like autobiographies were most useful in avoiding instances of plagiarism but noted that traditional research projects could also be framed in a way that would minimize opportunities for plagiarism (e.g., requiring drafts during the writing process). Furthermore, resources exist to aid instructors in uncovering instances of plagiarism.
In concluding the session, participants reiterated the need for ef-fective awareness and prevention programs on campus, including ways to make students more aware of the code. Additionally, several partici-pants mentioned that citation requirements differ by discipline (e.g., journalism vs. history) and the need to change campus culture without making librarians appear as if they are the citation police. Participants also raised the possibility of organizing a formal campus initiative to support plagiarism detection (with librarians aiding instructors in uncovering instances of student plagiarism) and the need for “just in time” instruction. Collectively, the group agreed that the focus should be on prevention rather than detection.
Respect Diverse Talents and Ways of Learning
While there has been much recent debate on the validity of learning styles, which suggest that people have preferred ways of learning and that teachers should adapt their teaching to address these preferences, both supporters and detractors agree that classes are composed of a variety of people and that understanding who these people are and how they learn can help improve teaching.31
Early on, the Teaching Alliance sponsored a workshop led by Beth Woodard that focused on learning styles. Participants in the workshop took the Kolb Learning Style Inventory,32 followed by a debriefing of the inventory and its implications for teaching. Participants then created sample instructional sessions that addressed a variety of learning styles.
A panel presentation with discussion, “Who Are Our Students?” started with Dean of Students William Riley presenting a timeline of demographics, attitudes, behavior, and interests of incoming students
of recent years, up to about 10 years ago. Panelists, including Riley; Jordan Seymour, a former Illinois undergraduate and then GSLIS master’s degree student; and Dana Wright, Assistant Undergraduate Librarian for Diversity Services, explored issues surrounding the needs of those students. Questions were invited after the presentations, and a lively discussion ensued, addressing issues specific to the interests of the participants. Three handouts were provided: “University of Illinois Student Profile Quiz,” “Profile of John Doe, The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ‘Model’ Student,” and a PowerPoint presenta-tion entitled “Illinois Student Profile.”
A third event focusing on diverse talents and ways of learning was led by Arlette Ingrim Willis, Associate Head of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. She showed a video and then led a discus-sion on “Teaching a Diverse Population.”
Caroline Haythornthwaite, co-editor of the then recently published “Internet in Everyday Life,” led a discussion that centered around “The Internet Goes to College: How Students Are Living in the Future with Today’s Technology.”33 Internet links to the report and suggested ques-tions were provided before the event, and hard copies of the report were also on hand during the event.
Chip Bruce of the GSLIS faculty presented an event entitled “What Do We Know about Undergraduate Learning?” which ad-dressed the developmental theory of learning as it relates to undergrad-uates. This was followed with a discussion session on how experts differ from novices, facilitated by GSLIS-Library Teaching Alliance coordi-nators Linda Smith and Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe. Discussed was “How Experts Differ from Novices,” a chapter from the book How People Learn.34 The Internet link to the online book was provided before the event, and hard copies of the chapter were on hand as participants entered the room.
Reflective Practice
Donald Schon’s articulation of reflective practice, whereby one con-siders one’s own knowledge and experience at the same time as being coached or mentored by an experienced professional, has had a pro-found influence on teacher education and improvement programs.35 The work of Stephen Brookfield further explored the importance of
critical reflection to improve teaching and learning.36 Peer coaching, creating teaching portfolios, and the use of action research are all tech-niques that help improve reflective practice.
Peer coaching uses the same process as evaluation, using preconfer-ence, observation, and postconferpreconfer-ence, but peer coaches do not evalu-ate; they use the observation opportunity to gather data and start a professional dialogue to help improve teaching.37 Some libraries have also instituted this process as an evaluative method for documenting the quality of teaching for promotion purposes.38
Kirby Barrick, from the College of Agriculture, Consumer and Environmental Sciences, led a session on “Peer Observation of Teach-ing.” Kirby presented strategies for making these peer observations positive by providing constructive feedback for change. His focus was on a voluntary process that would not be used for evaluative purposes. Unfortunately, the next logical step of creating peer groups was stymied by being unable to create appropriate groups. This remains a project the group would like to revisit in the future.
The creation of teaching portfolios encourages the articulation of a teaching philosophy and asks teachers to provide evidence of the effectiveness of their teaching. Judith Arnold and K. B. Pearson wrote one of the first descriptions of how this process can be applied by librarians.39 Jane Tuttle further explored the use of teaching portfolios, highlighting how the process can illuminate areas about which library instructors may not have awareness.40
A presentation and discussion on “The Ins and Outs of Teaching Portfolios” was led by Beth S. Woodard, then Central Information Services Librarian. Based upon a workshop presented at an ACRL conference, this workshop featured discussion about the purposes for which portfolios can be used; reflective writing on teaching philosophy; brainstorming evidence of teaching performance, philosophy, and prac-tice; and highlights of assessment techniques. A follow-up session for feedback on teaching philosophy statements was offered at a later date.
“What Kind of Teacher Are You? Models from the Movies” was presented by Jane Alsberg and Laura Hahn from the campus Center for Teaching Excellence and provided a light-hearted but deeply engaging approach to discussing difficult teaching issues and student learning challenges. Clips from Mona Lisa Smile, Dead Poets Society, Finding
Forrester, and other films were used to highlight teacher effectiveness and identify particular characteristics and approaches that can be in-corporated into teaching in libraries.
The use of action research is another technique that helps improve instruction through the facilitation of reflective practice. The presenta-tion and discussion of “Acpresenta-tion Research as a Methodology for Inquiry” was facilitated by Ann Bishop, associate professor, GSLIS, who de-scribed a project entitled “Community Inquiry and LIS.” The presenta-tion outlined definipresenta-tions and examples of participatory acpresenta-tion research, participatory evaluation, appreciative inquiry, and service learning. These approaches to inquiry involve learners to a greater degree than more experimental methods and can be easier for librarians to imple-ment in their teaching environimple-ments.
“The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) Unmasked” was facilitated by guest Kathleen McKinney, Cross Chair in the Schol-arship of Teaching and Learning and professor of sociology at Illinois State University. Prior to the event, an article entitled “The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Past Lessons, Current Challenges, and Fu-ture Visions”41 was distributed in order to provide a common point of entry among participants. Discussion topics for small groups included these:
• What Is the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) in
Higher Education?
• Research Methods for Doing the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning
• Ethical Issues in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Copies of all handouts were sent to interested persons who were unable to attend. Kathleen McKinney also donated several books to the Teaching Alliance to be used as SoTL resources.
Campus Opportunities
Librarians and instructional staff are also able to take advantage of the campus Center for Teaching Excellence, which provides resources, training, and consulting services related to teaching and learning.42 In addition to the workshops mentioned above that have been offered through the Teaching Alliance and the new liaison to the Teaching Alliance, the center offers additional workshops open to all campus
instructors on a variety of topics including metaphors, concept map-ping, storytelling, grading, creating tests, connecting learning theories to classroom activities, writing teaching philosophy statements, and syllabus development.
The center also sponsors an annual Faculty Retreat on Active Learning, a one-day event to which all Illinois faculty are invited to learn more about teaching from a nationally known keynote speaker and concurrent and poster sessions featuring local faculty. These events have been held since 1995, and librarian attendance has been steadily increasing. Librarians have also presented sessions about their own teaching projects and recently have also had a resource table showing how the library supports campus faculty in their teaching.
Beginning in fall 2004, as a follow-up to the 2003 Faculty Retreat, which featured Lee Schulman speaking on the scholarship of teaching and learning, the Center for Teaching Excellence has been holding dis-cussions during the academic year on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning as a systematic investigation into issues of student learning, bridging the acts of teaching and research. Librarians have been active participants since its inception and the Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction serves on the advisory board for the SoTL group.
Librarians also participate in and present at the campus’s Faculty Summer Institute, a four-day conference sponsored by the campus Educational Technologies group and the Illinois Online Network.44 This conference offers more than 50 presentations, including hands-on workshops, forums, poster sessions, keynotes, and roundtable discus-sions, for those interested in the application of Web-based technologies to the teaching and learning process and in the planning, administra-tion, and management of online education programs.
The codirectors of the Teaching Alliance also serve as members of the campus Teaching Academy Leadership Network (TALN), a grassroots group of the leaders of the teaching academies in the colleges across campus. Through TALN, the codirectors share information with other instructional improvement leaders on campus and gain ideas for implementation in the Teaching Alliance. In 2008–2009, TALN spon-sored a Diversity in the Classroom workshop..
Instructional Development Opportunities in the
Profession
The main consortium impacting instructional librarians at Illinois is CARLI (Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois), a consortium of all the academic libraries within the state. In its previous iterations, this group typically held forums twice a year focusing on public services aspects of using the statewide online catalog. Instruc-tional applications beyond the catalog were generally not discussed. After the reorganization of the consortium, CARLI has been taking a more proactive role and sponsored an ACRL Institute for Information Literacy Regional Immersion Program in summer 2007 with 46 at-tendees, three of whom were from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. In fall 2006, CARLI also began holding forums that focus on information literacy and instruction and now has a very active instruction team.45
The Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction has also obtained a commitment from the library administration for regular funding for attendance at the Institute for Information Literacy Immersion Program each year. At present, Illinois has had five attend-ees in program track, five in teacher track, and one each in intentional teacher and the assessment programs. These four tracks focus on differ-ent areas:
• teacher track on teaching techniques for those librarians new
to teaching
• program track on coordinating and leading instruction
pro-grams
• intentional teacher on development opportunities for
experi-enced teachers
• assessment on improving knowledge and practice of both
class-room and program assessment
Four librarian hires have attended immersion prior to being hired, and two University Library faculty are faculty in the immersion pro-gram.
Library funding has also been set aside for attendance at other instruction conferences, for example, LOEX (Library Orientation Exchange), LOEX-of-the-West, and WILU (Workshop on Instruction in Library Use), as well as other higher education conferences that focus
on student learning and instructional improvement, such as those put on by the American Association of Colleges and Universities and the Educause Learning Initiative. Librarians are also eligible to apply for additional campus funds to supplement internal travel money for at-tendance at instructional conferences.
Conclusions
Over the past two or three decades, instruction has evolved at Illinois from a concern of a small committee and the Undergraduate Library to a core service responsibility for all public service and subject liaison librarians in a transition similar to that of public services positions throughout the country. With the creation of the position of Coor-dinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction came the opportunity and expectation for the development of an instructional improvement program supporting the librarians and other instruc-tional staff. As the professional development offerings for instrucinstruc-tional improvement expanded, the User Education Committee also created a subcommittee, the Professional Development Working Group, to help guide and further the growth of the instructional improvement offer-ings. The working group is also fortunate to have the guidance of the relatively newly disseminated ACRL “Standards for Proficiencies for Instruction Librarians and Coordinators”46 in identifying areas of need.
By indicators of participation numbers and positive evaluations, the instructional improvement program of the University Library has enjoyed great success. Program evaluations indicate that participants appreciate the variety of topics addressed, the variety of presenters who have led sessions, careful attention to logistics (e.g., starting and ending on time, provision of snacks and beverages, and Web-based registra-tion for events), and how responsive the selecregistra-tion of topics has been to instructional needs. These strategies are reflective of the overall philoso-phy of the program—to create opportunities for development, not a mandated one-size-fits-all prescription.
While successful, however, the University Library still has many ways to further develop its instructional improvement programs. Little assessment of the program has investigated the impact of the offer-ings—for example, do librarians change their teaching approaches, do they incorporate new techniques, are they more reflective in their
practice, or have they adopted a focus on student learning outcomes? In addition, some librarians attend most of the sessions and many attend none, so there is a need to engage a broader group of participants as well as identify experts in particular instructional improvement areas beyond the Coordinator for Information Literacy who might be called upon more one-on-one for consultations and assistance. Building a local instructional community that encompasses all who have instruc-tional responsibilities is the guarantee that everyone is able to engage their instructional responsibilities successfully and in personally fulfill-ing ways.
Notes
1. Beverly P. Lynch and Kimberley Robles Smith, “The Changing Nature of Work in Academic Libraries,” College & Research Libraries 62, no. 5 (Sept. 2001): 407–420.
2. College and University Professional Association, “The Draft CUPA Position Descriptions for Academic Libraries,” May 2007. www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/ acrl/issues/personnel/cupataskforce.pdf (accessed April 6, 2010).
3. ACRL Instruction Section Professional Education Committee, “Library Instruc-tion Courses Offered by Accredited Master’s Programs in Library and Informa-tion Studies,” March 21, 2007, www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/about/secInforma-tions/ is/projpubs/ceprogram/libraryschools.cfm wikis.ala.org/acrl/index.php/IS/ Library_Instruction_Courses (accessed April 6, 2010)
4. ACRL, Immersion Program website, http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/is-sues/infolit/professactivity/iil/immersion/programs.cfm (accessed Feb. 20, 2008). 5. Alice S. Clark, “In-House Training: The Situation in ARL Libraries,” in Teaching
Librarians to Teach: On-the-Job Training for Bibliographic Instruction Librarians,
ed. by Alice S. Clark and Kay F. Jones, 32–44 (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1986).
6. Scott Walter and Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe, Instructional Improvement Programs. SPEC Kit No. 287 (Washington, DC: Office of Leadership & Management Services, Association of Research Libraries, 2005).
7. Priscilla Atkins and Catherine E. Freirichs, “Planning and Implementing a Teaching Workshop for Librarians.” College & Undergraduate Libraries 9, no. 2 (2002): 5–20.
8. “Instructor College,” University of Michigan website, www.lib.umich.edu/ instructor-college (accessed June 13, 2007); “Instruction In-Services” Ohio State University Libraries website, /library.osu.edu/sites/staff/ioc/insvc.php (accessed April 6, 2010); “Tips and Techniques for Library Instruction,” University of Texas Libraries website, www.lib.utexas.edu/services/instruction/tips/index. html (accessed June 13, 2007); Judith Peacock, “Teaching Skills for Teaching Librarians: Postcards from the Edge of the Educational Paradigm,” Australian Academic and Research Libraries 32, no. 1 (May 2001), http://alia.org.au/publish-ing/aarl/32.1/jpeacock.html (accessed Dec. 12, 2007); Sarah Leadley, “Teaching Meetings: Providing a Forum for Learning How to Teach,” Reference Services
Review 26, no. 3/4 (Dec. 1998): 103–108.
9. Association of College and Research Libraries, “ACRL Statement on Professional Development,” July 8, 2000, www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/publications/ whitepapers/acrlstatement.cfm (accessed June 18, 2007).
10. Michael B. Paulsen and Kenneth A. Feldman, Taking Teaching Seriously: Meet-ing the Challenge of Instructional Improvement, ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2. (Washington, DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, 1995).
11. Carnegie Foundation for Higher Education, “Carnegie Classifications,” 2000, www.educause.edu/CarnegieClassifications/1051 (accessed June 6, 2007). 12. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, “:Campus Strategic Plan,” March
2007, 4, www.strategicplan.uiuc.edu/documents/Illinois_StrategicPlan.pdf (ac-cessed June 17, 2007).
14. University of Illinois Library at Urbana-Champaign, “New Service Model Pro-grams,” www.library.illinois.edu/nsm (accessed Oct. 12, 2008).
15. University of Illinois Library at Urbana-Champaign, “Challenge, Change, and the Service Imperative,” April 21, 2008, www.library.illinois.edu/nsm/back-ground/service_imperatives.html (accessed Oct. 12, 2008).
16. University of Illinois Library at Urbana-Champaign, “Coordinator for Informa-tion Literacy Services and InstrucInforma-tion Job Announcement,” 2002.
17. University Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, “Vision for Information Literacy Services and Instruction,” Fall 2002.
18. University Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, “Statement on Learning Goals,” 2003; Association of College and Research Libraries Biblio-graphic Instruction Section, Read This First: An Owner’s Guide to the New Model Statement of Objectives for Academic Bibliographic Instruction (Chicago: Ameri-can Library Association, 1991); Association of College and Research Libraries, “Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education,” 2000, www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm (accessed June 6, 2007).
19. ACRL. “Statement on Professional Development.”
20. Emily Mazure, Nicole Scholtz, and Maura Seale, “An Outcome-Based Evalua-tion of the Instructor College,” Winter 2007. www.lib.umich.edu/files/SI623re-port_summary.doc (accessed June 13, 2007).
21. University Library, “Vision for Information Literacy Services.”
22. Anna Litten, “We’re All in This Together: Planning and Leading a Retreat for Teaching Librarians,” Journal of Library Administration 36, no. 1/2 (2002): 57–69.
23. Arthur W. Chickering and Zelda F. Gamson, “Seven Principles for Good Prac-tice in Undergraduate Education,” AAHE Bulletin 39 (March 1987): 3–7, ED 282 491.
24. Ibid. 25. Ibid.
26. Charles C. Bonwell and James A. Eison, “Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom,” ERIC Digest ED 340 272 (Washington, DC” ERIC Clear-inghouse on Higher Education, Sept. 1991). www.ntlf.com/html/lib/bib/91-9dig. htm (accessed June 6, 2007).
27. Raymond J. Wlodkowski and Margery B. Ginsberg, “Feedback,” in Diversity and Motivation: Culturally Responsive Teaching. 242–246 (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1995).
28. Thomas A. Angelo and K Patricia Cross, Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993), 121-125, 148-153-258-262
29. Kathleen Cotton, “Expectations and Student Outcomes,” School Improvement Research Series Close-up 7 (Nov. 1989), http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_ send/562 (accessed June 13, 2007).
30. U.S. Department of Education, “Hard Work and High Expectations: Motivating Students to Learn,” June 1992, www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content3/work. expectations.k12.4.html (accessed June 13, 2007).
31. Frank Coffield, David Moseley, Elaine Hall, and Kathryn Ecclestone, Should We Be Using Learning Styles? What Research Has to Say to Practice (London: Learn-ing and Skills Development Agency: 2004), www.lsnlearnLearn-ing.org.uk/search/ Resource-32186.aspx (accessed Dec. 12, 2007); Marcia L. Conner, “Introduction to Learning Styles.” Ageless Learner website, http://agelesslearner.com/intros/ lstyleintro.html (accessed June 13, 2007); David Hargreaves, chair, About Learn-ing: Report of the Learning Working Group (London: Demos, 2005), ww.demos. co.uk/files/About_learning.pdf?1240939425 (accessed April 3, 2010)
32. David A. Kolb, Kolb Learning Styles Inventory (Boston,: Hay Group Transform-ing LearnTransform-ing, 2007).
33. Mary Madden and Steve Jones, “The Internet Goes to College: How Students Are Living in the Future with Today’s Technology,” Sept. 15, 2002, report, PEW Internet & American Life Project, www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2002/The-Internet-Goes-to-College.aspx (accessed June 13, 2007).
34. “How Experts Differ from Novices,” chapter 2 in How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, ed. John D. Bransford, Ann L. Brown, and Rodney R. Cocking. (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999), 17–38, www.nap.edu/html/howpeople1 (accessed Dec. 12, 2007).
35. Donald A Schon, Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1996); Joan M. Ferraro, “Reflective Practice and Professional Development,” ERIC Digest ED 449 120 (Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education, 2000).
36. Stephen D. Brookfield, Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995).
37. Lee-Allison Levene and Polly Frank, “Peer Coaching: Professional Growth and Development for Instruction Librarians,” Reference Services Review 21, no. 3 (Fall 1993): 35–42; Cheryl Middleton, “Evolution of Peer Evaluation of Library In-struction at Oregon State University Libraries,” portal: Libraries and the Academy
2, no. 1 (Jan. 2002): 69–78.
38. Patrick Ragains, “Evaluation of Academic Librarians’ Instructional Performance: Report of a National Survey,” Research Strategies 15, no. 3 (1997): 159–175. 39. Judith M. Arnold and K. B. Pearson, “Using the Teaching Portfolio to Define
and Improve the Instructional Role of the Academic Librarian,” in Linda Shirato and R. Fowler (eds.), Change in Reference and BI: How Much Help and How? Pa-pers and Session Materials Presented at the Twenty-Second National LOEX Library Instruction Conference Held in Ypsilanti, Michigan 13 to 14 May 1994, 29–42 (Ann Arbor, MI: Pierian Press, 1996).
Instruction Librarian,” in J. K. Nims, and A. Andrew (eds.), Library User Educa-tion in the New Millennium: Blending TradiEduca-tion, Trends, and InnovaEduca-tion: Papers and Session Materials Presented at the Twenty-Seventh National LOEX Library Instruction Conference Held in Houston, Texas 12 to 13 March 1999, 141–149 (Ann Arbor, MI: Pierian Press, 2001).
41. Kathleen McKinney, “The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning: Past Lessons, Current Challenges, and Future Visions,” To Improve the Academy 22 (2004): 3–19. www.sotl.ilstu.edu/downloads/pdf/definesotl.pdf (accessed June 13, 2007). 42. Center for Teaching Excellence website, http://cte.illinois.edu (accessed June 13,
2007).
44. Faculty Summer Institute, www.ion.uillinois.edu/institutes/fsi/2006 (accessed June 13, 2007).
45. Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois, “I-Share Instruc-tion Team,” www.carli.illinois.edu/comms/iug/iug-instr.html (accessed Oct. 12, 2008).
46. Association of College and Research Libraries, “Standards for Proficiencies for Instruction Librarians and Coordinators,”2007, www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/ acrl/standards/profstandards.cfm (accessed Oct. 12, 2008).
Role of Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction, Office of Services, and the Relationship between Coordinator and Library Units
User Education Committee (http://www.library.uiuc.edu/com-mittee/usered)
Library Instruction Reporting and Unit Annual Reports Professional Development Opportunities
• GSLIS-Library Teaching Alliance and Campus Teaching
Academies
• Active Learning Retreat • PITA Grants
• ILI-L Listserv
• ACRL Instruction Section • LOEX Resources
General Programs
• New Student Week Tours • Library Fall Festival • Virtual Tours
• Undergraduate Library Programs
Instructional Materials and Resources
• Statement on Learning Goals
• Information Literacy Vision Statement • GEN Handouts
• Library Brochure
• Information Literacy Website
Equipment and Facilities
• Classrooms
• Portable Instruction Unit
Approved April 18, 2005—User Education Committee, University Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
CHECKLIST FOR NEW LIBRARIANS AND
OTHERS WITH TEACHING RESPONSIBILITIES:
INFORMATION LITERACY
Association of College and Research Libraries
A division of the American Library AssociationChicago, Illinois 2010
STAFFING, SUSTAINING, AND
ADVANCING THE ACADEMIC LIBRARY
IN THE 21ST CENTURY
edited by
1992. ∞
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
The expert library : staffing, sustaining, and advancing the academic library in the 21st century / Scott Walter and Karen Williams, editors. p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-8389-8551-9 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Academic libraries--Personnel management. 2. Academic librarians--Selection and appointment. 3. Academic libraries--Employees. 4. Academic librar-ies--Effect of technological innovations on. 5. Academic libraries--Forecasting. 6. Academic libraries--United States--Case studies. I. Walter, Scott, 1967- II. Williams, Karen,
Z675.U5E95 2010 023--dc22
2010033332
Copyright ©2010 by the American Library Association.
All rights reserved except those which may be granted by Sections 107 and 108 of the Copyright Revision Act of 1976.
Printed in the United States of America. 14 13 12 11 10 5 4 3 2 1
FOREWORD ...V
The Hybridization of Library Personnel Resources: New Responsibilities Demand Staff Diversity
James G. Neal
INTRODUCTION ... IX
Scott Walter and Karen Williams
CHAPTER 1 ...1
Academic Library Staffing A Decade From Now
David W. Lewis
CHAPTER 2 ...30
New Challenges in Academic Library Personnel Selection
John Lehner
CHAPTER 3 ...52
Innovators Wanted: No Experience Necessary?
R. David Lankes
CHAPTER 4 ...76
Put the Pieces Together and You Get the Perfect Academic Librarian… or Do You?: What Competency Standards Tell Us About Academic Librarianship in the 21st Century
Heather Gendron
CHAPTER 5 ...93
The New Liaison Librarian: Competencies for the 21st Century Academic Library
Craig Gibson and Jamie Wright Coniglio
CHAPTER 6 ...127
Preparing Our Librarians for the Future: Identifying and Assessing Core Competencies at the University of Minnesota Libraries
Program
Marta L. Brunner
CHAPTER 8 ...190
The Publisher in the Library
Michael J. Furlough
CHAPTER 9 ...234
E-Science, Cyberinfrastructure, and the Changing Face of Scholarship: Organizing for New Models of Research Support at the Purdue University Libraries
Jake R. Carlson and Jeremy R. Garritano
CHAPTER 10 ...270
Creative Disorder: The Work of Metadata Librarians in the 21st Century
Kevin Clair
CHAPTER 11 ...292
Listen Up, Librarians: It’s All About the Message
Eric Bartheld
CHAPTER 12 ...314
Teaching the Teachers: Developing a Teaching Improvement Program for Academic Librarians
Beth S. Woodard and Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
CHAPTER 13 ...337
Creating Smooth Sailing: The Benefits of Organization Development for the Expert Library